MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108183223 · doi:10.1002/trc2.12103

Differentiating among stages of cognitive impairment in aging: Version 3 of the Uniform Data Set (UDS) neuropsychological test battery and MoCA index scores

2020· article· en· W3108183223 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroko H. Dodge, Felicia C. Goldstein, Nicole Wakim, Tamar Gefen, Merilee Teylan, Kwun Chuen Gary Chan, Walter A. Kukull, Lisa L. Barnes, Bruno Giordani, Timothy M. Hughes, Joel H. Kramer, David Loewenstein, Daniel Marson, Dan Mungas, Nora Mattek, Bonnie C. Sachs, David P. Salmon, Monica Willis‐Parker, Kathleen A. Welsh‐Bohmer, Katherine Wild, John C. Morris, Sandra Weıntraub

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDementiaNeuropsychologyCohortNeuropsychological testMontreal Cognitive AssessmentClinical Dementia RatingReceiver operating characteristicPsychologyAudiologyTest (biology)CognitionCognitive testAlzheimer's diseaseGerontologyMedicineCognitive impairmentClinical psychologyPsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Federally funded Alzheimer's Disease Centers in the United States have been using a standardized neuropsychological test battery as part of the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (UDS) since 2005. Version 3 (V3) of the UDS replaced the previous version (V2) in 2015. We compared V2 and V3 neuropsychological tests with respect to their ability to distinguish among the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global scores of 0, 0.5, and 1. METHODS: First, we matched participants receiving V2 tests (V2 cohort) and V3 tests (V3 cohort) in their cognitive functions using tests common to both versions. Then, we compared receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve in differentiating CDRs for the remaining tests. RESULTS: Some V3 tests performed better than V2 tests in differentiating between CDR 0.5 and 0, but the improvement was limited to Caucasian participants. DISCUSSION: Further efforts to improve the ability for early identification of cognitive decline among diverse racial groups are required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.318
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia Translational Research & Clinical InterventionsSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207